Who Wrote the Four Gospels?

[paul_c]

There is a huge difference between Church tradition and church Dogma. Church Dogma is known to be true and tends to focus on things leading to salvation. It is Dogma that the Bible is inspired and that it can be trusted to lead to salvation.

The authorship of the Bible doesn’t rise to the level of dogma, because as long as the Bible is inspired, it doesn’t really matter who wrote them. In fact, if it was found definitively that a disciple of John wrote the 4th gospel(for instance), and not him, it would still not matter in terms of what the church teaches about salvation.

If on the other hand, the Church was to declare that it was Dogma that John the Apostle wrote the 4th gospel and then it was found definitely that it was written by someone else, that would raise questions about all other Dogma. This is why the Church is very careful about what it declares is indispensible to the faith. In this case, the question isn’t that important (authorship doesn’t effect men’s salvation) and the evidence isn’t perfectly clear by anyone’s criteria, so it makes perfect sense that the Church hasn’t declared this as dogma.

That said, I still prefer the traditional view that the Authors of the 4 gospels were indeed those to whom they have always been attributed. Further, I prefer the Clementine view that Matthew wrote the first Gospel in Aramic for the Jews in Palestine very early in the church and then translated it into Greek for further distribution. It makes sense to me that this document would be the basis of both Luke and Mark’s gospel and that both of these were written in the late 50s to early 60s. I can comprehend how Mark’s Gospel could have been a summary of Peter’s views of the other two Gospels and that John’s was written later to fill in some of the blanks left from the other three. The Markan priority has never made sense to me because it relies on the Q document, that can not be found. Surely, if such a document existed for both Matthew and Luke to use, it would have been important enough to have been saved. To me, the only reason people have even considered a Markan priority is that Mark’s gospel is shorter and in inferior Greek. This is explained better by the Clementine theory than the Q theory.

 

[David_Zampino]

There is a huge difference between Church tradition and church Dogma. Church Dogma is known to be true and tends to focus on things leading to salvation. It is Dogma that the Bible is inspired and that it can be trusted to lead to salvation.

AMEN!!!

The authorship of the Bible doesn’t rise to the level of dogma, because as long as the Bible is inspired, it doesn’t really matter who wrote them. In fact, if it was found definitively that a disciple of John wrote the 4th gospel(for instance), and not him, it would still not matter in terms of what the church teaches about salvation.

**EXACTLY!!! ** Same point I have been trying to make.

If on the other hand, the Church was to declare that it was Dogma that John the Apostle wrote the 4th gospel and then it was found definitely that it was written by someone else, that would raise questions about all other Dogma. This is why the Church is very careful about what it declares is indispensible to the faith. In this case, the question isn’t that important (authorship doesn’t effect men’s salvation) and the evidence isn’t perfectly clear by anyone’s criteria, so it makes perfect sense that the Church hasn’t declared this as dogma.

Another excellent point.

That said, I still prefer the traditional view that the Authors of the 4 gospels were indeed those to whom they have always been attributed.

Honestly, I think that most of us participating in this discussion agree on this point.

Further, I prefer the Clementine view that Matthew wrote the first Gospel in Aramic for the Jews in Palestine very early in the church and then translated it into Greek for further distribution. It makes sense to me that this document would be the basis of both Luke and Mark’s gospel and that both of these were written in the late 50s to early 60s. I can comprehend how Mark’s Gospel could have been a summary of Peter’s views of the other two Gospels and that John’s was written later to fill in some of the blanks left from the other three. The Markan priority has never made sense to me because it relies on the Q document, that can not be found. Surely, if such a document existed for both Matthew and Luke to use, it would have been important enough to have been saved. To me, the only reason people have even considered a Markan priority is that Mark’s gospel is shorter and in inferior Greek. This is explained better by the Clementine theory than the Q theory.

A perfectly legitimate opinion. One I don’t particularly share, but nevertheless a legitimate opinion. But as you stated, opinions concerning authorship and date of writing are not dogma, and shouldn’t be expressed as such.

Blessings,

 

[Erich]

This is a reason for hypothesizing “Q.” Because of the literary agreement that can often be found between Matt and Luke–and their both being different from Mark – it’s hypothesized that there was a source/document that was known/used by both Luke and Matt when they composed their Gospels. So I don’t see that as a problem for theorizing Markan priority.

I may not understand you correctly…but I think that concluding Matt and Luke are not completely independent of each other is exactly part of the Markan priority theory and why Q is hypothesized. I don’t see a problem here for Markan priority.

According to most (if not all ) versions of the Markan priority theory, Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels were written independently of each other, in (and for) separate communities that were out of touch with one another. As you noted above, because of the literary agreement that can often be found between Matt and Luke – and their both being different from Mark – it was hypothesized that there was a source/document that was known/used by both Luke and Matt when they composed their Gospels. This, by itself, is not a problem for theorizing Markan priority (I’ll even grant that such a source/document could account for Matthew and Mark choosing the exact same words as each other instead of the words Mark chose which mean the same thing). The problem really becomes apparent only after looking at all the dualities I referred to earlier, plus the pattern of choosing exactly the same healing stories/commandments/etc., plus things like the following:

When the three Gospels are placed side by side, we can see where borrowing has taken place. … According to the Markan priority theory, when Matthew ceases to follow the order of Mark, Luke continues in it until, when Luke ceases, Matthew takes over, and this continues throughout the Gospels. This could only have been accomplished if Matthew and Luke co-ordinated their work very closely.

With all these (dozens, even hundreds) of examples of Matthew and Luke seemingly having to coordinate their work very closely, what need is there for Q? And if there is no real need for Q, then some other theory is needed to account for the literary agreement between Matthew and Luke – and their difference from Mark – in order to support Markan priority.

Also consider:

Clement of Alexandra recorded that: “And when Peter got to know about it [Marks Gospel] he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or promote it”. This raises interesting questions. If Marks Gospel was the first gospel to be written, and therefore the flagship of the Christians, why was Peter so indifferent regarding its promotion? On the other hand, if we accept that two well prepared and constructed Gospels already existed, and Peter had merely preached a series of sermons based on them, Peter’s attitude is easy to understand.

The Clementine tradition of Matthew - Luke - Mark - John takes a much more holistic approach to New Testament dating than the narrow “literary analysis only” world that many Markan priorists seem to live in.

 

[paul_c]

The one thing that you do get into with non-Christians is the question of why we think that the Gospels are inspired. In these discussions amoung Christians, its an article of faith but to a true unbeliever, it is the first place to attack. This is a more difficult discussion to have if you can’t agree that the authors were eye-witnesses because the further removed from the actual events the authors are, the more suspect they are.

The arguments for authenticity without knowing the actual authors can include the following points:

• Consistency between the accounts without downright duplication suggest multiple sources
• Level of detail suggests eyewitnesses
• Historical and geographical references are consistent with what we know from other sources
• Naming witness names adds to credibility
• Consistency between copies suggest a higher degree of care than normal books of the time

 

[diggerdomer]

The Markan priority has never made sense to me because it relies on the Q document, that can not be found.  Surely, if such a document existed for both Matthew and Luke to use, it would have been important enough to have been saved.  To me, the only reason people have even considered a Markan priority is that Mark's gospel is shorter and in inferior Greek.   This is explained better by the Clementine theory than the Q theory.

I don’t understand Markan priority to rely on Q, it’s actually the assumption/theory that Mark came first and was used/known by Luke and Matt that resulted in the hypothesis of Q. Whether or not Q existed does not affect Markan priority (at least the theories I’m familiar with).

 

[paul_c]

I don’t understand Markan priority to rely on Q, it’s actually the assumption/theory that Mark came first and was used/known by Luke and Matt that resulted in the hypothesis of Q. Whether or not Q existed does not affect Markan priority (at least the theories I’m familiar with).

From everything I’ve read, the fundamental things that drove a Markan priority was that it was shorter than Luke or Matthew and that it was in inferior Greek. The thought being , why would someone truncate a gospel and write it in worse language. However, this immediately brings up the problem that there are clearly shared accounts between Luke and Matthew that are not common with Mark. The solution to this was to create the Q theory.

 

[Erich]

There is room from Dei Verbum to conclude John and Matt were written by the Apostles themselves. Their is room from Dei Verbum to conclude John and Matt were written by “apostolic men” i.e. not by the Apostles themselves.

Dei Verbum does not require us to hold one of these opinions, nor does it preclude us from holding either. To say otherwise is reading more into (or out of) the text.

There is room in the mainline text of Dei Verbum (which upholds the essential traditions of the Church) to come to either of your two conclusions… but in order to grasp the full meaning of some passages, it is necessary to refer to the footnotes and clarifications made at the time by the Theological Commission.

It is these footnotes which refer to the writings of the ECF’s (Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine), as well as the canons of prior ecumenical councils. And of course it is these folks (and others) who wrote (among other things) that the Apostles Matthew and John are the actual authors of the books which bear their names.

If the gospels of Matthew and John were not written by Apostles but by apostolic men, and (especially) if Markan priority is true, then we indeed have a foundation of sand for the entire church… because neither Mark nor Q mention anything about Peter being the Rock.

 

[David_Zampino]

From everything I’ve read, the fundamental things that drove a Markan priority was that it was shorter than Luke or Matthew and that it was in inferior Greek. The thought being , why would someone truncate a gospel and write it in worse language. However, this immediately brings up the problem that there are clearly shared accounts between Luke and Matthew that are not common with Mark. The solution to this was to create the Q theory.

It is also important to remember that in some iterations of the theory, “Q” is not a written document, but rather an oral tradition.

It is further important to remember that there is no single “Markan” theory any more than there is a single “Matthean” theory. There are numerous variations on these themes. (I even once met a “Lukan priority” scholar! – CERTAINLY a minority viewpoint!)

 

[David_Zampino]

If the gospels of Matthew and John were not written by Apostles but by apostolic men, and (especially) if Markan priority is true, then we indeed have a foundation of sand for the entire church… because neither Mark nor Q mention anything about Peter being the Rock.

Again, Erich, I don’t think that most of us participating in this discussion are denying the Apostolic authorship of either Matthew or John.

That’s one issue. (And, it seems to me, to be the question posited by the original poster.)

Arguing Matthean vs. Markan priority is another issue. The Synoptic problem doesn’t involve John’s Gospel at all.

The notion that Markan priority gives the Church a “foundation of sand” is patently absurd. I don’t know about you, but my faith is stronger than that!

 

[David_Zampino]

BTW, Erich,

I LOVE your signature line!

 

[diggerdomer]

From everything I’ve read, the fundamental things that drove a Markan priority was that it was shorter than Luke or Matthew and that it was in inferior Greek. The thought being , why would someone truncate a gospel and write it in worse language. However, this immediately brings up the problem that there are clearly shared accounts between Luke and Matthew that are not common with Mark. The solution to this was to create the Q theory.

I think that’s what I was trying to say, Markan priority is argued (from things like what you mention: length, quality of Greek, and of course other criteria). Once one concludes Markan priority, some would then go on to theorize Q to help explain Luke and Matt given Markan priority. I think we agree (?). Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

There is room in the mainline text of Dei Verbum (which upholds the essential traditions of the Church) to come to either of your two conclusions… but in order to grasp the full meaning of some passages, it is necessary to refer to the footnotes and clarifications made at the time by the Theological Commission.

It is these footnotes which refer to the writings of the ECF’s (Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine), as well as the canons of prior ecumenical councils. And of course it is these folks (and others) who wrote (among other things) that the Apostles Matthew and John are the actual authors of the books which bear their names…

Footnotes referring to ECF sources do not support the claim that Dei Verbum requires (or denies) the specific authors of specific New Testament books. Yes, Irenaeus, Jerome, and Augustine thought Matthew was written first and actually written by Matthew. They also probably thought the earth was flat. Teachings of the ECFs have to be understood and interpreted in light of Tradition, and that’s done by the Magisterium. I’m not saying the ECFs were wrong, I’m just saying their ideas on this matter are not taught as you seem to think by Dei Verbum (or by the Church). If the Church at Vatican II wanted to teach what you claim, they would have said so clearly in the text of the document. You can interpret the footnote to support your claim, but it’s not required of us by the Church to interpret it that way.

If the gospels of Matthew and John were not written by Apostles but by apostolic men, and (especially) if Markan priority is true, then we indeed have a foundation of sand for the entire church… because neither Mark nor Q mention anything about Peter being the Rock.

Matthew and John were written by Apostles or apostolic men. That’s what the Church teaches.

Mark not mentioning Peter as the Rock has nothing to do with any theory of the order the Gospels were written. As the Church teaches (Dei Verbum 19):

The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.

The sacred authors (note, no names!) “selected” – Mark (or any Gospel) not having something recounted in another Gospel is not, by itself, of significance in that each author was obviously free (and inspired) to select what parts of the Gospel they wrote down.

Anyway, our foundation is not based on the order the Gospels were written.

 

[Erich]

Again, Erich, I don’t think that most of us participating in this discussion are denying the Apostolic authorship of either Matthew or John.

Agreed. I suppose the main reason I’m belaboring that point is becasue it is the 2000-year Tradition of the Church… and because (as I’m sure you’ll agree) if it is possible to “chip away” at the historicity of these two gospels, then it is possible to “chip away” at a whole lot more.

Arguing Matthean vs. Markan priority is another issue. The Synoptic problem doesn’t involve John’s Gospel at all.

Agreed. I only ever mentioned John in the context of “Apostles” (plural) and “apostolic men” having written the Gospels… because clearly Luke and Mark are not counted among the Twelve.

The notion that Markan priority gives the Church a “foundation of sand” is patently absurd. I don’t know about you, but my faith is stronger than that!

I admit to engaging in a bit of hyperbole (my faith, too, is stronger than that)… but I did so to illustrate a point. As Paul C pointed out earlier on this thread, “The one thing that you do get into with non-Christians is the question of why we think that the Gospels are inspired. In these discussions amoung Christians, its an article of faith but to a true unbeliever, it is the first place to attack. This is a more difficult discussion to have if you can’t agree that the authors were eye-witnesses because the further removed from the actual events the authors are, the more suspect they are.”

Case in point… what is one of the biggest things about the Catholic Church that is attacked by non-Catholics (and, judging from publications like Newsweek, by some Catholics as well) but the papacy? Any well-catechised Catholic can talk about Peter the Rock, “the gates of hell will not prevail”, the connection between Isaiah 22:22 and Peter’s keys, “feed my sheep,” etc. and build upon those points because any well-catechised Catholic knows the Gospels are indeed historical. It only makes sense for someone who’s arguing against the Catholic understanding, to argue against the foundation of that understanding. But how many (outside of those of us participating in this discussion) even know why Matthew is always the first gospel listed? They kinda know that John is always the last gospel listed because it was written and published last, but then why aren’t the epistles listed in chronological (instead of size) order? They not only don’t know the Tradition, they also don’t know how the Tradition came to be.

Now, if Matthew were not written first, but rather Mark was, it’s possible to “chip away” at the historicity of the Gospels because now all the authors are further removed from the actual events (and why would an eyewitness rely on the Gospel of a non-eyewitness anyway)? If Mark (and the hypothetical Q) were written and published first, then it’s possible to “chip away” at the Papacy because “obviously that stuff in Matthew was written by somebody with an agenda… after all, the earliest sources don’t say anything about it.”

In retrospect, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that people started leaving the Catholic Church in droves right around the time Markan priority started to be taught as “gospel truth” in Catholic institutions.

 

[diggerdomer]

Agreed. I suppose the main reason I’m belaboring that point is becasue it is the 2000-year Tradition of the Church… and because (as I’m sure you’ll agree) if it is possible to “chip away” at the historicity of these two gospels, then it is possible to “chip away” at a whole lot more.

I agree with your final statement. I do not see Markan priority, as a theory, chipping away at the historicity of the Gospels. I can understand why some might, I guess, but it’s not necessary. The historicity of the Gospels is obviously taught by the Church. But the Church does not see the historicity of the Gospels depending on a certain order of Gospels being written, or on whether or not a given Apostle wrote a given Gospel or one of the Apostle’s followers did.

 

[Erich]

I think that’s what I was trying to say, Markan priority is argued (from things like what you mention: length, quality of Greek, and of course other criteria). Once one concludes Markan priority, some would then go on to theorize Q to help explain Luke and Matt given Markan priority. I think we agree (?). Thanks.

I can agree with that. Personally, I think one would almost have to go on to theorize Q (or something like it) to explain what the Clementine tradition (for example) explains quite succinctly.

I may have posted some of this before, but I think it bears repeating:

There is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that Q or its author ever existed. If Q had existed, it would have been the most precious scroll of Christianity during the first 50-70 years of the new religion. According to the Markans we owe the preservation of The Our Father and The Beatitudes to Q. Mark did not bother to record them. If Q had been the key document containing the sayings of Christ, it would have been treasured, copied and passed from hand to hand and read at Services.

Markan priorists want us to believe that the community that produced Q later lost it, although it was so important that Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, made much use of it. Then the communities of Matthew and Luke also lost it. It is hard to believe that only two copies were made of Q and these just happened to be in the possession of the isolated communities in which Matthew and Luke lived and these communities lost them. If more copies were made for many communities, Markans have to explain how all these copies of this key Christian document were lost. Also, how did ‘Q’ disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of Christian or heretical literature?

Those who hold the Markan theory demand the most stringent proof for the historicity of the Gospels, for which we have much historical evidence. Yet they accept conjectures and theories about Q, based on further conjectures and theories for which there is no evidence at all. In reality Q was created in the 19th century, out of nothing, to fill a hole in the Markan priority theory.

Markans describe the period between the time of Christ and the writing of the Gospels as A long dark tunnel. Groups of dedicated Markans have spent years, at the expense of Universities, looking for Q and its author in this darkness. According to the historians and those who accept the Jerome or Clementine traditions, the period was short. The long is not a fact, but a further creation by Markans to bolster their theory. It is true that the Markans are working in a long dark tunnel. This is because they refuse to turn on the lights provided by the historians.

The Markans call the anonymous authors they have invented, by the names of actual people (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). This makes them sound familiar, real and comforting but, if the Markans are correct, more appropriate names would be Saints Tom, Dick, Harry and Janette, while not forgetting the venerable Q. I have no wish to be facetious, but it is necessary to be blunt in order to bring home an important point. The use of familiar names to describe unknown alleged authors, emotionally clouds a clear understanding of what Markan priorists wish us to believe. I am not surprised when non-Christians are unconvinced by the Markan way of explaining the truth of Christianity.

Irenaeus, Eusebius, Tertullian and others had travelled throughout the Roman Empire, and were well educated, so why did they have no knowledge of the alleged anonymous authors or Q? Why were all the ancient historians and theologians completely ignorant of the great saints who had, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, produced the greatest writings of mankind? Also, why did they all come to believe that they were written by the same four other authors?

When the Deists first put forward the assertion that we could not know of the life of Jesus from the Gospels, they were asserting that the Gospels had been written 2-300 years after the life of Christ. Few today try to uphold this assertion, so place Matthew and Luke at about 85 AD and John about 95-100. But these were periods when many eyewitnesses and the children of eyewitnesses were alive and active in the Church. Although many of the old Deist arguments have now been discredited they still influence modern Markan thinking.

The entire document, while a long read, is actually quite thorough. Try as I might with key selected extracts, I don’t seem to be doing it very much justice.

 

[TMC]

Right. So what Q theory merely represents is a more collective authorship. Instead of one guy sitting down with pen in hand to write a Gospel from memory, you have a community of Chrisitans starting with the apostles telling and retelling stories and eventually being set to paper in perhaps two steps.

I don’t see how Q theory takes away from the role of the Holy Spirit.

The existence of Q is entirely inferred by the stylistic redundencies between certain Gospels.

It is also important to remember that in some iterations of the theory, “Q” is not a written document, but rather an oral tradition.

It is further important to remember that there is no single “Markan” theory any more than there is a single “Matthean” theory. There are numerous variations on these themes. (I even once met a “Lukan priority” scholar! – CERTAINLY a minority viewpoint!)

This is always the way I have thought “Q” may fit into the story - not necessarily as a single document, but more likely a set of oft-repeated sayings of Christ.

From everything I’ve read, the fundamental things that drove a Markan priority was that it was shorter than Luke or Matthew and that it was in inferior Greek. The thought being , why would someone truncate a gospel and write it in worse language. However, this immediately brings up the problem that there are clearly shared accounts between Luke and Matthew that are not common with Mark. The solution to this was to create the Q theory.

I lean strongly toward Markan priority, but mostly because of substantive content, not length or literary style. Mark is actually very well told and some of Mark’s triplet or sandwich stories suffer from Matthew’s attempt to transform them into a more straight ahead style.

Mark is noticable simpler theologically, however. In fact, if you line the Gospels up Mark, Matthew, Luke, John you can really see how Christology developed over a very short period of early Church history. Mark tells the story of Christ’s earthly mission in a straight forward and factual manner, merely relating what happened from the beginning of Christ’s ministry to Easter. Matthew and Luke include a lot more spiritual and theological explanation, and tell the story from just before Christ’s earthly conception through his post resurrection appearances. John gives the most in depth theological material, and begins at the begining of time.

As for authorship, I find it an interesting question, but not one that questions the roots of my faith. Personally, I accept that Mark was written by a young follower of Peter named Mark, that Matthew was written by or according to the teachings of the Apostle, and that Luke was written by a physician named Luke. I find it hard to credit John to the Apostle John, and most scholars seem to agree that John is the hardest Gospel to associate with a specific individual. It seems likely that John was associated with a community that followed or was associated with John, but I don’t know how much more one can say than that.

 

[diggerdomer]

I can agree with that. Personally, I think one would almost have to go on to theorize Q (or something like it) to explain what the Clementine tradition (for example) explains quite succinctly.

I may have posted some of this before, but I think it bears repeating:

The entire document, while a long read, is actually quite thorough. Try as I might with key selected extracts, I don’t seem to be doing it very much justice.

That’s an ok theory, I disagree with it but that’s beside the point. The point is, it’s not what the Church teaches/requires (nor does it conflict with what the Church teaches).

 

[Erich]

That’s an ok theory, I disagree with it but that’s beside the point. The point is, it’s not what the Church teaches/requires (nor does it conflict with what the Church teaches).

I would say that Markan priority and ‘Q’ is an ok theory (I disagree with it), and that the Clementine tradition does a much better job of reconciling the historical evidence and the scientific evidence with traditional Church teaching.

For one thing, Carsten Peter Thiede’s significant (and of course controversial) finding that the Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew was written sometime before the end of the first century (and as early as 60), based on a comparison of the style of its script with papyrus scrolls from Qumran, Pompeii, and Herculaneum (datable before 70 or 79), is controversial precisely because of the implications for the Markan priority theory.

 

[annem]

Erich

Quote:
There is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that Q or its author ever existed. If Q had existed, it would have been the most precious scroll of Christianity during the first 50-70 years of the new religion. According to the Markans we owe the preservation of The Our Father and The Beatitudes to Q. Mark did not bother to record them. If Q had been the key document containing the sayings of Christ, it would have been treasured, copied and passed from hand to hand and read at Services.

Markan priorists want us to believe that the community that produced Q later lost it, although it was so important that Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, made much use of it. Then the communities of Matthew and Luke also lost it. It is hard to believe that only two copies were made of Q and these just happened to be in the possession of the isolated communities in which Matthew and Luke lived and these communities lost them. If more copies were made for many communities, Markans have to explain how all these copies of this key Christian document were lost. Also, how did ‘Q’ disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of Christian or heretical literature?

Those who hold the Markan theory demand the most stringent proof for the historicity of the Gospels, for which we have much historical evidence. Yet they accept conjectures and theories about Q, based on further conjectures and theories for which there is no evidence at all. In reality Q was created in the 19th century, out of nothing, to fill a hole in the Markan priority theory.

Markans describe the period between the time of Christ and the writing of the Gospels as A long dark tunnel. Groups of dedicated Markans have spent years, at the expense of Universities, looking for Q and its author in this darkness. According to the historians and those who accept the Jerome or Clementine traditions, the period was short. The long is not a fact, but a further creation by Markans to bolster their theory. It is true that the Markans are working in a long dark tunnel. This is because they refuse to turn on the lights provided by the historians.

The Markans call the anonymous authors they have invented, by the names of actual people (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). This makes them sound familiar, real and comforting but, if the Markans are correct, more appropriate names would be Saints Tom, Dick, Harry and Janette, while not forgetting the venerable Q. I have no wish to be facetious, but it is necessary to be blunt in order to bring home an important point. The use of familiar names to describe unknown alleged authors, emotionally clouds a clear understanding of what Markan priorists wish us to believe. I am not surprised when non-Christians are unconvinced by the Markan way of explaining the truth of Christianity.

Irenaeus, Eusebius, Tertullian and others had travelled throughout the Roman Empire, and were well educated, so why did they have no knowledge of the alleged anonymous authors or Q? Why were all the ancient historians and theologians completely ignorant of the great saints who had, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, produced the greatest writings of mankind? Also, why did they all come to believe that they were written by the same four other authors?

When the Deists first put forward the assertion that we could not know of the life of Jesus from the Gospels, they were asserting that the Gospels had been written 2-300 years after the life of Christ. Few today try to uphold this assertion, so place Matthew and Luke at about 85 AD and John about 95-100. But these were periods when many eyewitnesses and the children of eyewitnesses were alive and active in the Church. Although many of the old Deist arguments have now been discredited they still influence modern Markan thinking.

hi Erich, wonderful quote. but what is this from? Thanks and God bless, Annem-

 

[peary2]

I recently read in another thread that we don’t really know who wrote the four Gospels (not referring to the non-canonical gospels). I guess I have always taken it for granted that there was ample evidence to support the namesakes of the Gospels, at a minimum Luke and John.

Who do the folks here believe wrote the four Gospels and can you support your position with evidence?

The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are called ‘synoptic’ gospels from the Greek word synopsis meaning “one-eye view”, since all three give a view of Christ’s life and works from their similarity in content, order, and statement. Since they share a similarity with each other, scholars have long believed that the writers had access to an earlier work of Jesus’s life. The gospels are largely from the initial Christian communities founded by the apostles. It is quite probable that a scribe could have interviewed those who knew Jesus and recorded, like Luke did, the events. Did Matthew and Mark write their own? Maybe, maybe not. Luke was not an apostle as far as I know but was a physician, and I believe he personally wrote his own gospel and the Book of Acts, which is a continuation of his gospel. He said he interviewed those who personally knew and were present at this time. There is no reason to deny it. He has more in his gospel than the others (i.e., the infancy narratives). I don’t doubt that he talked with Christ’s mother, either. I also believe that John’s gospel was written by John, the beloved disciple who also either wrote or dictated the book of Revelation. John’s writings were probably much older than the others and were written when he was an old man.

But even before all of this, there are the writings of Paul which I feel are the earliest writings about the Christian community. I also believe that the gospels of Matthew and Mark were already written and were being shared by these communities throughout the Mediterranean area.

There is probably some evidence for all of this, but I prefer to keep these things “close to my heart.”